Re: Clang backports for 4.9 and 4.4

[Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:31:35AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> Greg,
> I'm in the process of preparing backports for building 4.9 and 4.4
> kernels with Clang.  Going off of mka's very helpful:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/22/943, I've prepared the list of SHA's
> that were marked UPSTREAM (internal convention used to denote patch
> applies cleanly):
> https://gist.github.com/nickdesaulniers/fe995f4b7c52af8de1a283c0a53562d9.
> But it seems that some of these shas no longer apply cleanly.  I was
> thus curious:
> 
> 1. May I send you a pull request with the patches properly backported?
> I'm happy to do the work, just want a green light before backporting
> all of these patches.
> 2. Should I denote in any way if I had to modify any patch to get it
> to apply cleanly?  This helps in code review, IMO.  If so, what
> convention should I use?

I usually add my initials with a small note for anything non-trivial
like: https://github.com/nathanchance/continuous-integration/blob/sandbox/patches/4.4/arm64/0015-kbuild-fix-linker-feature-test-macros-when-cross-com.patch

I meant to post this on GitHub earlier but was wiped out from work. I
did a successful backport for arm64 on top of 4.4.163 a couple of days
ago that is based on the work Matthias did with some of the newer fixes
that have cropped up. Hopefully it is of some use :)

https://github.com/nathanchance/continuous-integration/tree/sandbox/patches/4.4/arm64
https://travis-ci.com/nathanchance/continuous-integration/jobs/159318688

Thanks!
Nathan

> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> ~Nick Desaulniers